Southern Christian Leadership Conference & Partners Ethics Project

1. 1 | P a g e
MICHAEL BROWN EVIDENCE OPINION
State of Missouri vs. Darren Wilson
Southern Christian Leadership Conference & Partners
Ethics Project
INTRODUCTION
At the foundation of our civil liberties lies the principle that denies to government
officials an exceptional position before the law and which subjects them to the same
rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens.
~~ Justice Louis D. Brandeis
I. OVERVIEW
A. QUALIFICATIONS.
1. I am a retired homicide detective with the City of Brockton and Brockton Police
Department [1995-10]. I am currently employed by the State of Massachusetts - Plymouth
County Sheriff’s Department Crime Lab, where I perform specialized duties such as a Questioned
Document Examiner, Video Forensics Technician, and I also process Crime Scene evidence
submitted to the Crime Lab for latent print development by twenty-three police agencies and the
Department of Corrections. These agencies are all within the jurisdiction of Plymouth County
[2011-14]. The City of Brockton is nearly four times the population of Ferguson with 93,000
residents and is the seventh largest city in Massachusetts. Brockton is sometimes referred to as
the “City of Champions” due to the success of native boxers Rocky Marciano and Marvin Hagler.
In 1995, I was hired under the federally funded COPS program. M.G.L. c. 41, § 96B requires that
“every person who receives an appointment to a police position, on a full-time basis in which he
will exercise police powers in the police department of any city or town, shall prior to exercising
police powers, be assigned to and satisfactorily complete a prescribed course of study approved
by the Municipal Police Training Committee [MPTC].” Per 550 CMR 3.03, this course of study

2. 2 | P a g e
is a full-time recruit academy operated or approved by the MPTC.1
I successfully completed
recruit training [1995-96] and was assigned duties of patrolman [1996-98]. I earned advancement
over others to detective [1998] because as a patrolman I solved crimes, I didn’t break rules or
policy to solve them, and I interacted very well with all citizens in the community. Police officers
must conduct their duties pursuant to a grant of limited authority from the community. Therefore,
officers must understand the laws defining the scope of their enforcement powers and authority as
granted. Concerned citizens are always watching and this is very important to insure integrity is
maintained. Every sworn member in law enforcement takes an oath to protect & serve. That
means sworn and certified officers understand they cannot exceed their authority, must respect all
citizens, are required to maintain personal integrity, be honest, have decency and maintain a
strong sense of virtue on and off-duty. The ends in police work can’t justify the means; else
corrupt acts will infiltrate the work of a police officer. A majority of citizens in their lifetime
support police individuals and the institution in the form of taxes, grants and other federal and
state subsidies. It is therefore important police administrators do not have discriminatory policies
or practices. Police officers protect & serve the public and it is imperative that whenever a
member harms the integrity and reputation of the majority of good cops that those good cops
work within the four corners of the law to have that immoral member removed from the rank and
file. When individuals disobey the law they ultimately harm the reputation of the entire police
organization and citizen trust is ultimately violated. The minority who of police officers who are
protected by the majority in law enforcement after egregiousness is discovered that harmed
citizen rights to life, liberty, property, privacy or unreasonable government intrusion are viewed
by the public as protecting criminal acts. Police officers aren’t above the law. The laws apply to
every citizen and anyone who commits a criminal offense must be equally subjected to
punishment under law to maintain trust or protecting lawlessness only harms the public’s faith in
the integrity of the criminal justice system and the veracity of individual officers. Community
cooperation with the police is a byproduct of transparency, communication, accountability, trust
and integrity of leadership that officers will act honestly, professionally and with impartiality. A
police officer is the public's initial contact with the criminal justice system and it is extremely
1
Police Recruit Training Requirements per Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/mptc/general-advisory-memo-re-training-requirements-for-police-officers.pdf

3. 3 | P a g e
important that citizens on patrol (“COPS”) act in a manner that instills such trust.2
These ethical
standards of conduct I understood and followed while I performed my duties as a cop. I expect
others to do similar. I am experienced, knowledgeable and very reasonable in how I conducted
my investigations as a member of law enforcement. Problem-solving for the betterment of all
citizens is similar to the mission statement the Ferguson Police Department Code of Conduct and
776 pages of General Orders:
Recognized for my performance as a patrolman and professionalism to the community, I earned
advancement to the position of Generalist Detective [1997-10]. I performed my duties and
applied the law impartially and without prejudice and never received a complaint against me for
being discriminatory. Completing my Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice, with Honors was
important for me to maintain a level of professionalism in the field of law enforcement. My
advanced degree grants me the ability to teach judges and jurors why my interpretation of
physical evidence is material. Each year I complete legal, forensic and other professional
learning unit credits to maintain competency. In every police organization veteran officers train
recruits, patrolman, and other less knowledgeable policeman about policy, customs, and agency
2
FDLE- Law Enforcement Officer Standards of Conduct
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/cjst/menu/officer-requirements-main-page/le-ethical-standards-of-
conduct.aspx

4. 4 | P a g e
culture; as such it is important for good information to be disseminated but unfortunately that
doesn’t always occur. Police officers make many contacts with citizens throughout their careers
and it is extremely important that officers become and maintain knowledge about law, criminal
procedure, ordinances, policy, and not disseminate misinformation to the general public. When
misinformation is disseminated to the public it reflects poorly on the cop and the organization.
The unfortunate reality, which is true in every occupation, is that a percentage of cops employed
in law enforcement are corrupt and they harm the reputation of the police institution as a whole
because little is done to remove unfit police officers.3
Police agencies, leadership and cops are
responsible for policing complaints of misconduct. Too often the interpretation of data regarding
police misconduct is mishandled which leads to a cop who otherwise should be removed from
police service remains on-duty to abuse the rights of another citizen. This harms the police
institution and integrity of every insider because citizens do not see police officers holding
citizens in uniform accountable. As a homicide investigator and crime scene investigator I
received specialized training regarding investigative techniques. That means I know how to
manager case information to ensure that investigations are investigated thoroughly and I have
experience that a maximum of resources are utilized to solve every crime. Cops are citizens and
when they violate the law or rights they should be treated the same as any other person who
violates that law; a full investigation to decide administrative and criminal punishment should be
conducted. A homicide & crime scene investigator position in the City of Brockton is coveted.
My duties as the Lead investigator involved responding to crime scenes, examining, evaluating,
assigning others, experiencing after death investigations and virtually every other type of case
including street crime, domestic crime, which required the application of law enforcement
investigative procedures, collection and preservation of evidence. I achieved a 95% clearance
rate; consecutively, the highest percentage year over year in my division as investigator while
employed in Brockton. During my career I also became an interrogation specialist often asked to
perform witness interviews and suspect interrogations. Assignments included reviewing patrol
level incident reports, conducting follow-up investigations, assisting patrol prepare criminal
reports. I completed eighty-hours of full-time specialized training at the Massachusetts State
Police Academy for Homicide Investigation [1997], and I also completed eighty-hours of
3
CATO Institute. Police misconduct reports 2009.
http://www.policemisconduct.net/2009-npmsrp-semi-annual-police-misconduct-statistics-report-updated/

5. 5 | P a g e
specialized training offered by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)
[1997]. My resume is attached – (see Exhibit I). Some of my investigations involved policemen
being arrested, my assisting a citizen with filing a complaint against a policeman for violating his
rights and the Constitution. I have testified at administrative hearing proceedings against officers;
one of which resulted in the termination of employment of the officer. I have conducted my own
investigations after internal affairs agents have exonerated officers of wrongdoing to discover a
scandalous cover up. I have also been deposed and answered questions asked by plaintiff and
defendants attorneys. The civil and criminal proceedings, I know, are different based on these
experiences. The Constitution guarantees the accused due process and equal protection under the
laws criminally, and the right to have legal counsel present when suspects meet a threshold two-
prong test (custody & interrogation) in Massachusetts; triggering Miranda in that jurisdiction. I
know all too well that some police officers, deliberately, violate citizen rights and in their reports
omit this fact. I have a vast amount of experienced as a patrolman, homicide investigator and
crime scene investigator. I responded to several hundred crimes scenes, arrested and/or filed
criminal complaints in courts of law based on probable cause against hundreds of citizens who
violated the law.4
I became knowledgeable of evidence collection, learned the importance of
canvassing crime scenes, conducted hundreds of witness & suspect interviews, demonstrated
good report writing & record keeping, multi-tasked, testified to my opinions based on
investigative discovery, prepared arrest warrants, wrote probable cause affidavits, and prepared
and executed search warrants. Police officers serve citizens. I learned early-on in my career that
to be the best police officer, meant I needed to respect citizens and in return they would partner
with me to problem-solve. I compared this to what I observed other officers employing which
were tactics that did not promote a spirit of trust maybe based on how they communicated with
citizens, treated them during an arrest or how they would use a broad brush to paint all citizens in
a neighborhood as potential suspects instead of realizing a majority of the impoverished are
actually decent people who are poor law abiding citizens coping with a small percentage of
citizens committing criminal acts. I also understand that if I did nothing if I witnessed a crime that
meant I violated my Law Enforcement Oath of Honor; and a requirement that I act. It is preached
inside Law Enforcement that one of the more detrimental consequences of unethical behavior is
4
Rashidi Smith shoots teenager Ken Williams arrest.
http://masscops.com/threads/cops-teen-killed-boy.31806/

6. 6 | P a g e
the subjecting of an agency to civil litigation. Litigation now comes in many forms: excessive use
of force, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination
and sexual harassment suits. Violations of civil rights under Titles 18 and 42 are becoming too
commonplace. Defending against such allegations both drains an organization financially and has
a long-term reputation effect—in many cases, stigmatizing the agency forever.5
Whether in public
streets or a courtroom police officers who lie, violate rights and break laws quickly lose
credibility and they harm the reputations of others they work alongside who knew or should have
known but decided to be idle and do nothing; a sin of omission. Under State law, police
supervisors may have direct liability to the public due to the act of a subordinate when the
supervisor authorized, participated in, directed, or ratified the act, or was present at the time the
act was committed and could have prevented it but failed to do so. Vicarious liability involves
indirect responsibility for what subordinates do due to negligence in training, hiring, assignment,
supervision, direction, entrustment, and retention. Police supervisors may also incur liability
under State law for actions affecting subordinates. Direct liability is usually associated either with
the causes for which an employee may be terminated, demoted, suspended, or reassigned or the
procedures followed in the aforementioned circumstances. Under Federal law, a police
supervisor's direct liability to the public is most often brought under Title 42 Section 1983. Some
circuit courts of appeal apply it in the hiring, training, or supervision of subordinates, or on
specific State law. Supervisor liability to subordinates under Federal law may come under
statutory prohibitions against discrimination. Police supervisors should know the legal limits of
their jobs and be more aware of what goes on among and the competencies of subordinates.6
2. I became a whistle-blower in a City of Brockton wrongful arrest of an African
American citizen [2007]. The victim named Jose Semedo had his civil rights violated by several
white officers; but the policemen, Internal Affairs and City attempted to cover-up their bad acts
[2007-13]. I witnessed as, a police insider, decision makers exonerate policemen administratively,
not charge wrongdoers criminally, and omit in their Internal Affairs findings critical information
5
IACP ethics.
http://www.theiacp.org/-Ethics-Training-in-Law-Enforcement
6
Supervisor liability for subordinates.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=118571

7. 7 | P a g e
to skew outcomes that protected officers. This all came to light during discovery and through
depositions. I experienced policemen and supervisors who believed it wasn’t criminal or
administratively punishable to call minorities disparaging names like “monkey,” “nigger,” “boy,”
“natives,” “savages,” “you people,” “African jungle bunny” to name a few which demonstrates
their vicarious liability when civil rights are violated. It is well established that policemen don’t
enjoy free speech to call citizens disparaging names; it is conduct unbecoming.7
It has also been
established that this form of free speech for police officers off-duty is cause for termination.8
When city police chiefs, city administrators and county sheriff’s fail to discipline for speech,
whether on or off-duty, that is inflammatory and disparaging toward Black citizens then it
becomes an accepted custom, policy & practice to use such language. Such conduct is a clear
violation of any anti-discrimination policy. A culture of bias that is anti-minority is bad for
citizens and policing. This speech by policemen with guns & badges will be considered very
“aggressive” and “terrorizing” speech to minority citizens who fear cops based on this speech,
their actions and their unlawful racial profile of law-abiding citizens will transform these officers
in to “bullies with badges” and violators of rights and the Constitution.9
This is unacceptable and
because police officers hold a great deal of power, control and influence over a person they seize
under the color of law this speech with or without acts will become discriminatory and will cause
minority citizens to file complaints against police for abuse.10
I witnessed this form of police
officer abuse and my subsequent investigation substantiated a hate-crime by police officers in
7
LAPD conduct unbecoming off-duty in use of offensive words “boy,” “monkey,” “nigger”
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/07/exclusive-lapd-officer-caught-on-tape-allegedly-making-racist-
comments/
8
Leominster mayor fires officer who directed racial epithet at Carl Crawford of the Red Sox
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/07/26/leominster-mayor-fires-officer-who-yelled-racial-epithet-carl-
crawford-the-red-sox/cLIW80DUr4on5gbLNVuCJK/story.html
9
FBI arrests several East Haven Police Officers for being “bullies with badges” and for racial profiling Blacks and
Hispanics.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/FBI-Arrests-East-Haven-Police-Accused-of-Racial-Profiling-
137956408.html
10
Semedo v. City of Brockton (2010).
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-
bin/recentops.pl?filename=zobel/pdf/semedo%20v%20elliott%20june%202012.pdf

8. 8 | P a g e
2007. I assisted the citizen [Jose Semedo] and experienced retaliation. I know all too well the
difficulties associated with being a whistle-blower but I also understand policemen take an oath to
protect & serve all citizens.11
3. As a crime scene investigator I understand very-well reasonable suspicion exists
when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable
facts, suspect that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is being planned to be
committed based on observations.12
I understood as a policeman that it was my responsibility to
not violate citizen rights or Constitutional protections with an end justifies the means belief
system. Doing so is conduct unbecoming, illegal and unethical. That arrogance has no place in
policing and agencies that have a culture of arrogance will only foster allegations of
organizational tolerance for noble cause corruption and betrayal of the public service philosophy.
When officers and administrators believe that the ends justify their means, such as illegal
searches, "articulation" in report writing, illegal arrests and "testilying," they corrupt their own
system.13
I understand based on my knowledge, specialized training and nearly twenty-years
experience in the law enforcement profession that policemen who arrogantly violate citizens
rights, their oath to protect & serve all citizens in a community will certainly place citizens at
harm, will tarnish their reputation, and that of all policemen and the institution. Their illicit
behavior will make it harder for honest, courageous and ethical officers to restore public trust.
Taxpayers are on the hook for the hire, training and termination of rogue police officers. The
Black and Hispanic community is well aware of the Excessive Force issues in society by police
because racism and discrimination remain prevalent today in society. In Albuquerque [2014], the
USDOJ discovered local police were improperly exonerating Excessive Force claims and the
community outcry for a federal investigation became necessary to protect citizens, hold
11
Williams v. City of Brockton (2012)
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2012cv10430/142553/32
12
Cornell Law. Reasonable suspicion.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion
13
Police Chief Magazine.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1025&issue_id=102006

9. 9 | P a g e
wrongdoers in uniform accountable and to force police reform.14
Police organizations and officers
who abuse trust, commit misconduct and are bullies with badges are likely known by fellow to
abuse trust but because of fear of retaliation many insiders remain silent. This is a serious
problem. When agencies are incapable of policing themselves regarding excessive force, civil
rights violations and other misconduct it becomes necessary for the FBI (as criminal investigator)
and the USDOJ (as the criminal and civil prosecutor) to investigate wrongdoing and when abuse
is found intervene to protect citizens from continued abuse. Police agencies know citizen
complaints must be handled properly.15
4. I am an independent subject matter expert on crime scene investigations. When
policemen make false statements, omit facts, and obstruct justice then a community will lose
trust. I have experienced the full panoply of policing and understand all too well the dangers,
uncertainty, and risks in policing. But I also know all too well that misconduct within the ranks of
a police organization that is permitted to escape punishment will not only damage the public trust
but will also tarnish the badge for all others in uniform who do nothing to hold wrongdoers in
uniform accountable. During my career as a policeman I myself have had to escalate to a Use of
Deadly Force once when a felony-burglary nighttime crime was in progress and the suspect fled
by car and led myself and other policemen on a high speed chase for several miles driving
recklessly and endangering lives. I was forced to draw my weapon, point-aim and discharge it
center mass on target because the defendant’s intent and acts to escape capture placed me in fear
of imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm if he ran me over with a motor vehicle. As a
policeman, I have also been shot at twice in the line of duty by armed & dangerous felons
carrying guns. These felons were disarmed and arrested without injury or further incident,
charged and punished by the courts. I understand policy and procedure when it concerns the Use
of Deadly Force and the desire for policemen to simply return home safe after each day’s work in
uniform. That said, a split second decision by policemen made in error, poor judgment, and any
14
Albuquerque Police Department shot and killed citizens exonerating the policemen and in 2014 USDOJ examines
the shooting findings only to discover police abuse of citizens should have been substantiated.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/apd_findings_4-10-14.pdf
15
Administrative VS. Criminal Complaint procedures Chief’s guide.
http://www.mschiefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PC-DESK-REFERENCE.pdf

10. 10 | P a g e
acts which violate citizen rights or the Constitution of the United States cannot be tolerated.
Honesty and integrity are critical and every police officer understands they are held to a higher
standard than the public. I have responded to and have been assigned as lead investigator in more
than one hundred serious criminal cases. I have testified in courts of law concerning my findings
primarily for the prosecution but on a few occasions I have also testified for the defense too. I
have investigated and reached opinions to charge citizens criminally in more than fifty firearm
related cases. I have investigated more than ten homicides whereby I responded, canvassed,
interviewed witnesses, interrogated suspects, gained confessions in a few, formed technical
opinions and testified in courts. My duties also included responding to the medical examiner’s
office for autopsies of homicide deaths, suicides, accidental deaths and other suspicious deaths.
The Medical Examiner (“ME”) is charged with determining a cause and manner of death,
overseeing the analysis of evidence and presenting their scientific findings in court. The ME often
works with the police to help guide their ongoing investigation but the ME's scientific opinion
may or may not be accepted by the courts, law enforcement, lawyers or the victim's family. Even
if the ME concludes that a death was a homicide, prosecutors may disagree and file no charges.
B. AFFIANT’S NOTABLE USE OF FORCE EXPERIENCES.
5. An unavoidable function of professional policing is contact between the police and
public.16
The affiant is no stranger to the rigors, split-second decisions or the unexpected dangers
associated with policing. A few notable cases involving the affiant’s experience as a Brockton
Police Department (“BPD”) officer demonstrate his reasonable thought processes while surviving
a number of critical incidents.
6. In 1996, the affiant responded to a “shots fired” call in the City of Brockton. While
responding to the area where the call originated the affiant spotted a person walking
approximately two blocks away from the crime scene. When the individual noticed the affiant’s
marked police cruiser traveling towards his direction the affiant noticed this individual began to
16
DOJ Contacts Between the Police and Public, 2002
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf

11. 11 | P a g e
walk hurriedly, bladed his body in a suspicious manner as the affiant passed by clutching his
waistband, and the affiant observed this same individual then run. It was Super bowl Sunday and
many people were indoors. Due to the proximity of a felony call of “shots fired” and the
suspicious activity observed the affiant used reasonable judgment and turned his patrol car around
without activating lights or siren and stopped this individual as he entered a convenience store.
Shortly after initiating a terry stop the affiant pat-frisked the individual for his safety and located
an illegally concealed “smoking” handgun inside the waistband of that citizen resulting in his
lawful arrest without escalating to the Use of Deadly Force. Forensically the gun recovered was
later subsequently identified as a murder weapon linked to the “shots fired” call the affiant
responded to.
7. In 1997, Commonwealth v. Adilson Barbosa the affiant conducted a car stop after a
neighboring community (Town of Stoughton) at about 3:30 AM reported an Armed Robbery in
that community to the City of Brockton.17
A clothing description was provided in a general
broadcast (“GBC”). The affiant located a suspicious vehicle at 4:00 AM with five individuals
seated in a car parked and idling in an alley next to a Brockton convenience store. The affiant
approached in a marked unit and noticed clothing being worn by occupants inside the car
matched the earlier GBC description of suspects wanted for “Armed Robbery” in Stoughton. A
rear seated passenger had his car door open with his right foot resting on the pavement and his
left foot still inside the car. Seconds after Williams pulled his patrol car behind the suspects
stopped car and shined a spotlight into the car the occupants made furtive movements inside the
car and behaved suspiciously. The rear seated passenger placed his right foot quickly inside the
car and slammed his door shut. The operator of the car placed the car into drive and began to
accelerate forward. The affiant activated his lights & siren and conducted a felony car stop
based on the Stoughton crime and what Williams suspected was a crime beginning to occur in
Brockton. Williams exited his cruiser with a gun drawn and ordered the five occupants to show
their hands and radioed area Brockton units for assistance. A reasonable person would conclude
based on a GBC from a neighboring town with clothing description and the fact that a car was
parked and idling in a alley next to a convenience store with individuals therein with similar
17
COMMONWEALTH vs. ADILSON BARBOSA
http://masscases.com/cases/app/49/49massappct344.html

12. 12 | P a g e
clothing being worn, and the sudden reaction by the occupants once the police activated a
spotlight heightened suspicion and warranted a detention and more police investigation. The
defendants were arrested, several illegal guns were recovered and the defendants were positively
identified as the armed robbers from the earlier Stoughton GBC too without Williams escalating
to the Use of Deadly Force.
8. In 1998, Commonwealth v. Joel Baez the affiant, narcotics detectives and the
Massachusetts State Police Drug Task Force executed a felony arrest warrant at a defendant’s
residence. The defendant ran from police. As the affiant ran after the defendant and closed within
a few feet of making a lawful arrest the defendant brandished a gun in his hand, turned and fired
it at the affiant. The affiant was not struck by the projectile. The subject was disarmed within
seconds and arrested without the affiant escalating to a Use of Deadly Force. This was a critical
shooting incident.
9. In 2003, Commonwealth v. Edgar Monteiro the affiant responded to a domestic
violence call to assist Brockton patrol officers. The affiant was the first to arrive at the scene.
While inside a residence questioning the husband the wife returned home and told Williams her
husband illegally possessed handguns and wanted to commit acts of violence against the wife
before she fled the home and threatened to kill police officers. The defendant was taken into
custody without incident and the firearms which he secreted were confiscated without escalating
to a Use of Deadly Force. Monteiro threatened the wellbeing of Williams and his family which
began a nine month long investigation and ended with the Massachusetts Attorney General filing
charges against Edgar Monteiro, Carey James Monteiro and Amanda James for insurance fraud.18
10. In 2004, Commonwealth v. Richard Smith the affiant assisted Brockton patrol in a
high speed pursuit of a felon wanted for burglary at night of a city business. During the pursuit
the felon rammed his car into the affiant’s unmarked police cruiser. The affiant continued to
pursue the defendant. The felon then drove down a dead end residential street. Once he reached
the cul-de-sac the felon drove his car up the front lawn towards the backyard and then came back
out to the road service on the opposite side of the home. The affiant did not follow the felon.
18
Mass AG Edgar Monteiro.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/11/07/74031.htm

13. 13 | P a g e
Williams parked his cruiser on the road and ran diagonally across the cul-de-sac anticipating the
felon would stop his car and a foot chase would ensue. Instead, Williams heard the roar of a car
engine and the car being driven by the felon wouldn’t stop and if it struck Williams who was now
in front of its path of travel the felon would of cause Williams serious bodily harm or perhaps
death. The affiant reasoned his life was in jeopardy upholstered-pointed-shot the felon who
refused to obey commands to stop. The split second decision by Williams to escalate to the Use
of Deadly Force was thoroughly investigated and determined to be a justified.
11. In 2005, Commonwealth v. Rupert Weeks the affiant conducted surveillance of a
house party at 2:00 AM in the City of Brockton. As partygoers left the residence and began
congregating in the roadway a argument outside the home erupted and a male brandished a
firearm and fire it at another citizen. The projectile nearly hit the affiant in a undercover (“UC”)
vehicle. The bullet missed the affiant seated in the UC by inches. The defendant was taken into
custody and the handgun recovered without escalating to the Use of Deadly Force.
12. In 2007, Commonwealth v. Rashidi Smith the affiant arrested a youth for the
murder of another youth.19
The “smoking” gun used by the defendant was recovered at his feet
after the affiant followed and radioed for assistance to affect a car stop. The defendant was taken
into custody without escalating to the Use of Deadly Force.
13. In 2008, Commonwealth v. Esau Depina the affiant responded to a home where
shots were fired minutes earlier.20
The scene was frozen for several hours with teenagers inside
the home while the affiant petitioned the court for a search warrant of the occupants and that
residence. A search warrant was granted and Williams located five firearms, ammunition and
contraband inside the property. Defendants inside the home after being read Miranda assisted
police with the discovery of additional illegally possessed guns in an attic space without the
affiant or other police professionals escalating to the Use of Deadly Force.
19
Marvin Constant homicide.
http://masscops.com/threads/cops-teen-killed-boy.31806/
20 Brockton teen held in gun case.
http://www.enterprisenews.com/x1405094100/Brockton-teen-held-in-gun-case?template=printart

14. 14 | P a g e
14. In 2009, Commonwealth v. Chris Santos the affiant at 2:00 AM in the morning
encountered a sixteen year old with other youths on a public street. The sixteen year old separated
from the crowd of fifteen other youths and began to walk in the opposite direction. The youth
would not answer Williams’ questions and he kept his hands concealed in the pockets of his
jacket. The youth and Williams were separated by a row of 4’ hedges. Williams unholstered-
pointed his firearm at the youth and ordered the youth to “Show me your hands” repeatedly and
Williams told the youth “Drop the gun.” The sixteen year old then placed on the ground a loaded
semi-auto handgun and moved away from it as Williams ordered. The sixteen year old was
arrested without further incident or the Use of Deadly Force.
15. As a Generalist Detective the affiant has specialized experience investigating
seventy (70) gun related crimes - (see Curriculum Vitae Exhibit).
C. OFFICER WILSON’S DECISION TO STOP DORIAN JOHNSON
AND MICHAEL BROWN REASONABLE.
OPINION I: - WILSON WITNESSED MICHAEL BROWN AND DORIAN JOHNSON
WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. WILSON EVENTUALLY PERFORMED
A LAWFUL DETENTION OF MICHAEL BROWN AND DORIAN JOHNSON BASED
ON RADIO TRANSMISSIONS OF STEALING, DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS STOLEN,
AND PROXIMITY TO CRIME.
D. WILSON’S OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING INSIDE CRUISER.
OPINION II: - WILSON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY REVEALS PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE OF ONE UNSPENT .40 CAL S&W ROUND OF AMMUNITION REMAINS
UNACCOUNTED.
16. The Crime Lab Firearms report revealed that Wilson fired a total of twelve (12)
rounds. Spent shell casings and lead ball ammunition were collected as physical evidence. Wilson
testified that he carried twelve (12) rounds of ammunition in his magazine and one (1) round
chambered; a total of thirteen (13) rounds. One unspent .40 cal S&W round of ammunition
remains unaccounted. It likely should have been located and recovered from inside Wilson’s

15. 15 | P a g e
cruiser. Wilson’s sworn testimony is his second shot fired from inside the vehicle came after he
cleared a malfunction of the Sig P229. Immediately following Wilson making his weapon
functional he pulled the trigger without looking at his site picture, according to his testimony.
Physical evidence supports Brown was shot in the right hand. This was not a contact wound
(muzzle touching). This was an intermediate gunshot wound to the right hand that was 6” to 30”
(inches) away from the muzzle. Based on Wilson’s testimony it is unclear how Wilson knew
Brown was not surrendering when he cleared and fired the P229 from inside his cruiser. Wilson
testified he did not look at Brown before discharging the weapon in Brown’s direction. Page 225
of Wilson’s sworn testimony describes how he racked the slide of his Sig P229 weapon which
would eject one unspent round of .40 cal S&W from the ejector port. The mechanical operation of
the firearm after one round is ejected is to have the magazine spring move the next round of
ammunition up and chamber the that round when the slide moved forward. The P229 weapon is
ready to fire once this mechanical function is completed.

16. 16 | P a g e
E. WILSON’S DEADLY FORCE DECISION TO STOP A
SHOPLIFTING SUSPECT BY GUN IS A BAD USE OF FORCE DECISION.
WILSON MADE A POOR TACTICAL DECISION. BY WILSON
CHOOSING TO NOT DE-ESCALATE AND HOLSTER THE P229
FIREARM WILSON PLACED HIMSELF AT A DISADVANTAGE
BECAUSE HE ESCALATED TO HOLDING A GUN IN HIS RIGHT HAND
WHILE USING HIS LEFT HAND TO RESTRAIN BROWN. IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT WILSON’S FIRST SHOT FIRED WAS AN
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE BASED ON DORIAN JOHNSON’S
TESTIMONY.
OPINION III: - WILSON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY REVEALS HIS DECISION TO
UNHOLSTER HIS GUN AND POINT IT AT BROWN AT THE OUTSET OF THE
DETENTION IS UNWARRANTED BASED ON THE CRIME OF “STEALING”.
17. In the case of Wilson the crime investigated was a low-level “stealing” cigarillo
cigars from a neighborhood convenience store. There were no radio transmissions of a weapon
used by a defendant during the commission of this “stealing” crime. Wilson testified that he
noticed Brown holding a handful of cigarillo cigars, which then began his investigative detention
of Brown for the past crime of “stealing”. When Wilson backed up his cruiser, stopped and then
seized Brown he did so with reasonable suspicion. Wilson’s decision to not put the P229 back in
the holster was probably a poor decision because it is understood in Law Enforcement circles that
it is very easy to have an accidental discharge by unwanted squeeze of the trigger while wrestling
with an unarmed subject. Wilson did not testify that at the outset when he seized Brown he feared
Brown possessed a weapon. Neither did Wilson have past call for service information to rely on
from the 911 call or responding officers. Here is Wilson’s sworn Grand Jury testimony on
September 16th
, 2014 - page 209:

17. 17 | P a g e
18. Police officers are trained to understand their use of force continuum options.
Wilson testified that he was punched by Brown’s right hand while Brown held onto a fist full of
cigarillo cigars in that same hand. Wilson testified that none of these glancing blows placed him
in imminent fear of his life. Wilson testified why he did not holster the P229 and de-escalate force
to his mace, baton, or flashlight but the testimony seems to lack credibility when one looks at the
crime scene photos of the inside of the cruiser. Wilson had within his immediate reach less than
lethal force options he bypassed; including the ability to simply create distance by driving
forward. Here crime scene photos taken of Wilson’s cruiser. They illustrate less than lethal force
options within an arm length reach of the driver’s seat, not including mace on Wilson’s personal
duty belt. To employ these options Wilson needed to holster his firearm.

18. 18 | P a g e
19. Wilson had probable cause to arrest Brown when Brown began to resist. Wilson
did not have at the outset of Brown resisting any probable cause to shoot Brown. It is likely
Wilson create his own exigency by not de-escalating from his deadly use of force option against
an unarmed resistive person.
20. Because Wilson elected to not holster his firearm and de-escalate to a lesser force
in the continuum he could not gain control of Brown with the left hand alone. The right hand
holding onto the firearm was useless in gaining Brown’s compliance because Brown is not a
lethal force threat to warrant imminent fear of death at the outset. It is well established by law
enforcement professionals that officers can’t create their own exigency to escalate to a use of
deadly force. Wilson allowed a resistive unarmed person with two hands filled with cigarillos’ to
strike the officer; according to Wilson’s testimony.
21. I don’t want to play hindsight quarterback to Wilson’s poor decisions to de-
escalate but it is worth noting he could have disengaged Brown all together by simply putting his
cruiser in drive and then driving forward to create distance. This would have cleared Brown’s
body from impeding Wilson’s ability to get out of the cruiser to control Brown. Wilson could
have then decided to re-engage Brown outside the cruiser to place him under arrest with less than
lethal force. There were no callouts by Wilson for “officer in trouble” while Brown resisted
arrest at the cruiser. The radio mic was within reach but Wilson again had no free hand due to his
decision to arm himself at the outset with his P229 firearm. Assist units would have responded
quickly because they were in the area searching for Brown. Wilson’s sworn Grand Jury testimony
on September 16th
, 2014 - page 237:

19. 19 | P a g e
22. Police training protocol is to always holster a gun when wrestling with a suspect
because the probability of an accidental discharge by inadvertently squeezing the trigger
increases. Wilson did not opt to de-escalate from lethal force so he was short one hand to defend
himself the entire event.
23. Based on crime scene photos of Wilson a few hours after this incident there’s little
or no detectable bruising, lacerations or swelling to the areas he claims Brown stuck with open
hand or clenched cigarillo filled hands. Here Wilson testified that Brown allegedly touched his
firearm. DNA lab results indicate that Brown and Wilson’s DNA were present on the weapon.
See page 215 of Wilson’s testimony regarding grab of his weapon.
IMPORTANT: DNA lab results that detect Brown’s DNA was on Wilson’s P229 cannot be
interpreted as widely reported to automatically mean that Brown transferred DNA to Wilson’s
weapon directly by touching it. Another scenario not reported is Wilson could have
contaminated his own gun with Brown’s blood after he shot Brown inside the police cruiser
and/or outside the police cruiser if Wilson checked Brown for vital signs. The DNA affirmative

20. 20 | P a g e
test results do not explain how Brown’s blood, sweat, mucous, tissue of other trace biologic
evidence transferred to Wilson’s P229 weapon or in what order of the crime scene. It is
possible Wilson transferred Brown’s DNA to these other contact surfaces post shooting when
Wilson went back to his cruiser before other officers arrived on scene. This might explain why
there is blood smear evidence inside the cruiser near the driver door handle and also why
Wilson washed his hands unattended at the police station before he was questioned.
24. Wilson’s Sig P229 weapon malfunctioned with ‘click’, ‘click’ then ‘bang’. There
was no corrective action by Wilson to make the weapon serviceable. Based on the intermediate
gunshot physical evidence Brown’s hand was no more than thirty inches away from the muzzle of
the P229. It is here Wilson’s version of the story about Brown grabbing the slide of the firearm
causing it to go out of battery and ‘click’ could also be related to Brown’s DNA being found on
the weapon. The alleged struggle leads to discharge of the weapon without injury to Wilson or
Brown from the projectile. Wilson does testify that the discharge did surprise everyone. It is

21. 21 | P a g e
unclear why the discharge from pulling the trigger would be a surprise unless it was maybe an
accidental trigger pull.
25. The affiant is knowledgeable about the mechanical operation of Glock semi-
automatic handguns which are similar in mechanical operation to the Sig P229. The affiant
performed several hundred hours of training as a law enforcement professional over the span of
fifteen (15) years. The training included simulating malfunctions and correcting them under
stress. This type of Officer Street Survival scenario training is standard in the police industry for
law enforcement. Wilson’s Sig P229, based on his testimony, had a battery malfunction of the
‘slide’. That means if Brown grabbed the barrel and pushed the slide in slightly the weapon is
going to ‘click’ on trigger pull but not fire.
IMPORTANT: Brown’s DNA is positive on the weapon. Law Enforcement did not explain to
the public that Wilson could have put Brown’s DNA on the firearm as trace evidence. ME’s
scientific testimony.
26. Wilson’s testimony first shot fired inside cruiser page 224.
IMPORTANT: Brown’s hand(s) were within 30 inches but not closer than 6 inches when the
weapon was fired and a projectile did strike Brown’s right hand based on Physical Evidence
(PE) of the ME’s Autopsy Report.

22. 22 | P a g e
27. Wilson’s testimony second shot fired inside cruiser. See page 225. Here Wilson
testified that he pulled the trigger, in a second attempt to stop Brown from punching him with an
alleged open or closed fist. Again, Brown has no weapon and Wilson is in a motor vehicle with
less than lethal mace, baton, flashlight or driving off yet Wilson decides to pull the trigger of his
Sig P229 in the direction of Brown again. Wilson’s testimony this time is his weapon, without
Brown’s hands allegedly touching the barrel; malfunctions again with a ‘click’ on trigger pull.
Here Wilson admits he pulled the trigger without looking at his target. Brown’s injury to the right
hand is open and on the palmer side and not a clenched fist. Was Brown after the first shot raising
his hands to give up? IMPORTANT: Brown’s hands are not on the barrel according to Wilson
during this second malfunction. Wilson racked the slide and ejected one unspent round,
according to his testimony. Crime Scene Services never located the unspent round #13 inside
or outside Wilson’s cruiser.

23. 23 | P a g e
28. See crime scene photos of the exterior of Wilson’s cruiser with evidence markers;
none are of an unspent .40 cal S&W round.

24. 24 | P a g e
29. Wilson exited his cruiser and a likely low-speed foot chase of unarmed teen Brown
wearing flip-flops ensued some 152’ 9” down the road in broad daylight. Multiple eyewitness and
Wilson’s accounts of what happened when Wilson discharged his weapon ten (10) times at
Brown outside the cruiser are hotly contested. Nonetheless, Brown did succumb to multiple
gunshot wound injuries in that roadway.
30. It is unclear based on Wilson’s sworn testimony what he did to render aid to
Brown immediately following the shooting. What is apparent according to his sworn testimony is
Wilson went back to his police truck and ‘put his gun up’.
31. When Wilson re-entered his police truck, after shooting and killing unarmed
Brown, it is unclear if Wilson contaminated his truck with Brown’s blood and other tissue on the
exterior door and interior surfaces like the door handle. It is also unclear if Wilson some 152’ 9”
outside of the cruiser truck contaminated his firearm with Brown’s blood after he fired ten shots.
None of those shots fired at Brown were closer than four (4) feet based on lack of powder and
stippling; scientific testimony. See Wilson’s testimony on page 235 about putting gun up inside
his car.
IMPORTANT: That doesn’t mean that Wilson did not approach and touch Brown as he laid in
the street dead before returning to his police truck. Wilson may have contaminated his weapon
with Brown’s DNA deliberately or inadvertently.

25. 25 | P a g e
32. Images of Brown DNA transfer evidence on Wilson’s clothing and large amounts
of blood deposited on inside door handle. See Crime Scene pictures taken below.
IMPORTANT: Wilson could have, post shooting, contaminated his cruiser and gun before or
shortly after other assist units arrived on scene. Wilson could have done so inadvertently or
deliberately.
F. OFFICER-INVOLVED CRITICAL INCIDENT DEFINITIONS.
33. An event in which an officer is involved as a principal, a victim, or is the custodial
officer, where death or injury occurs or when an officer intentionally discharges his/her firearm at

26. 26 | P a g e
another person is a “Officer-Involved Critical Incident.” This includes all in-custody deaths, use
of deadly force, or serious motor vehicle crash involving a squad car.
34. An investigation of a critical incident to ascertain all the relevant evidence as to
whether or not anyone committed a crime during the course of the event which led up to and
included the critical incident is a “Criminal Investigation.” The criminal investigation is separate
from an administrative investigation and both can run simultaneously, end separately and have
different dispositions.21
35. An officer who is directly involved in the critical incident as a principal, a victim,
a witness, or is the custodial officer is called an “Involved Officer.”
21
Critical Incident Policy.
https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/documents/sopOICI.pdf

27. 27 | P a g e
www.kwillservices.com

28. 28 | P a g e
.

29. 29 | P a g e

30. 30 | P a g e
CURRICULUM VITAE

31. 31 | P a g e

32. 32 | P a g e

33. 33 | P a g e

34. 34 | P a g e

35. 35 | P a g e

36. 36 | P a g e

37. 37 | P a g e